My friend Mark Barrett, a lawyer with an apparently amazing capacity to read and absorb legal decisions, writes with this interesting quote from Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion (page 29):
A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Update: Speaking before his remarks at the symposium on Socially Responsible Investing we sponsored this evening with the Catholic Finance Association, William Mumma, the head of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty , brought up Justice Ginsburg’s comment and said that he thought this meant that the legal challenges to the individual mandate would succeed. I wasn’t taking notes and he didn’t say much about it, but that was the gist.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
